Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Graph AAVE MCP

Graph AAVE MCP

by PaulieB14
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_risk_chains

Retrieve all liquidation risk subgraphs across supported chains, including network names, subgraph IDs, and 30-day query volumes.

Instructions

List all available liquidation risk subgraph chains with their names, networks, subgraph IDs, and 30-day query volumes. Use when asked: 'Which chains have liquidation risk data?', 'What risk subgraphs are available?'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_risk_chains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. While the output is described, critical behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The purpose and usage examples are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it lists and when to use it. However, the lack of behavioral transparency slightly reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info as there are none, but the baseline is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'liquidation risk subgraph chains', and specifies the returned fields (names, networks, subgraph IDs, query volumes). It also provides example user queries, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when asked...') with example questions, offering clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like list_aave_chains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools